I think it all depends how on how one perceives it. Some people might think there's nothing wrong with it, it's poorly worded, or just plain offensive.

I can understand the sentiments behind the last two; the former speaking for itself, but the latter is where it gets a little more complicated. The title can easily be interpreted as one that denies Michelle's American background and given the history of America towards Asian Americans, most Asians or other people like myself tend to get defensive. (And Asians are also are one of the smaller minorities in America.)

I'm sure the person who wrote the article didn't mean any harm. The title was just poorly worded.

Yes, yu-na's quite special for basically becoming the queen of skating in a country with a lackluster skating history. I would say Michelle's dominance is also special in that she became famous when skating was at its most popular in the United States after the Tonya/Nancy scandal, in a country with one of the greatest skating histories. If Korea fails to produce another champion after Yu-na leaves, skating in Korea will surely die a quick death. It means all the more that someone like Michelle is one of the most beloved of all time in a country with a long and illustrious history in skating.

You underestimate the impact YuNa has had on Korea. It's not so much that she became famous in a country that had a lackluster skating history, she literally kickstarted what looks to be a love affair with the sport. Even if another champion doesn't come along for an indefinite amount of time, YuNa's fairytale story, I think, will continue to inspire and motivate a ton of youngsters who can now dream of being like her. And they will probably have far more support than YuNa could have ever dreamed of when she first started out. So no, I disagree, Michelle's stardom is not "all the more", to me. It seems far easier to become a star in a sport that peaked in popularity and infamy back then in the US. It seems far easier to become a champion from a country that has a history of producing champions.

However, it seems that this kind of talk is missing the most important points. I'm not a huge of resumes and lists of medals. I think the manner of winning (or losing) is the most important. pangtongfan's post seemed like a tongue-in-cheek jab at those who want to trumpet people's careers over others'--there are lots of skaters with impressive careers. When Michelle lost, she still gave it her all and accepted it gracefully--in 1998 she was silver despite skating flawlessly (IMO). And when she won, she won gloriously, making casual fans take notice, adults cry, and kids cheer. The way she skated was special. There is no reason to put down others' achievements and claim they aren't that great. No one and nothing can take away from Michelle's talent, period.

Originally Posted by Tonichelle

It was poor word choice, they should have used youngster or something similar.

*gasp* Are you saying Michelle was not young?? *indignant*

Originally Posted by janetfan

Hughes Good as Gold
American beats out Kwan, Slutzkaya

This kind of headline would have been perfect: Name of winner in the big headline, nationality in the second, smaller headline. Just a bare "American beats Kwan", while not particularly offensive to me, strikes me as a bit... ...vague. Would I have been offended at a title that said, "Michelle beats Michelle"? (if it occurred) - nah, but it's not the same. "Chinese beats Kwan" would have been a bit odd, too. "Woman outskates Kwan", ditto.

Sorry, I think my post came across a different way than I intended. There's a reason I said Michelle's dominance is "also" special, not more special. "All the more" doesn't mean "more than Yu-na", it means there is also something special in that there is significance to the fact that Michelle became popular in the sport during the time that the sport happened to be at its most popular in the United States, a country that already had a long history of greatness in the sport. It's a great thing for Michelle, if anything. Although Michelle never had the same kind of stress Yu-na had with an entire country's hopes upon her, Michelle still had her own different stresses which were much less than Yu-na's but still considerable, such as dealing with constant phenoms from her own country coming up and occasionally stealing her crown (which in a country with such a strong record as the US, throughout ten years, was a given)

You're right that trumpeting people's competitive histories doesn't mean much in the long run, Sonja Henie's competitive career would kick anyone's in the butt. I guess I just had a gut feeling that pangtongfan's post was not so "tongue-in-cheek", I've just heard similar shtick before, and I also think such "trumpeting" posts are to be expected in a thread dedicated to a certain skater. It's just the nature of fandoms. I accept there are fans of other skaters and I myself enjoyed Sarah and Tara's performances, but in his comparisons he bunched Kwan and Hughes together which I thought was laughable. Again it's all quite immature, meaningless stuff, forgive me for going over the top as I tend to do in my fan worship

Yes, I can just make a case of Tara winning purely on the basis of her tech.

sure that is your opinion, but the judges made the case on both tech and presentation at Nagano. I stated that I agree with the judges. Then think about it Tara's tech was awesome at Nagano. She did 3 loop/3 loop. 8 years later the OGM attempted but did not complete a single triple loop at Turino. 12 years after Tara's win at Nagano, the OGM did not even attempt one triple loop. Talk about sports should go forward, the current OGM is loopless, and yes I do bow to Tara's superior tech skills.

And no, I don't care about your opinion and criteria, which I disagree with. Michelle's presentation in 1998 was better than Tara's for the kinds of reasons that MKFSfan and others have outlined (TO ME, duhhhHHH)

Oh duhh!!!! right back at you, the judges gave MK higher presentatin at nats. That was the point I was making that I agree with the judges. I never said kwan's prsentation was better at Nagano. (this is the lp we are talking about of course, at Nagano, Kwan's marks on both were higher in the sp)

sure that is your opinion, but the judges made the case on both tech and presentation at Nagano. I stated that I agree with the judges. Then think about it Tara's tech was awesome at Nagano. She did 3 loop/3 loop. 8 years later the OGM attempted but did not complete a single triple loop at Turino. 12 years after Tara's win at Nagano, the OGM did not even attempt one triple loop. Talk about sports should go forward, the current OGM is loopless, and yes I do bow to Tara's superior tech skills.

And now we go off on a tangent that has relevance to the discussion in what obscure way? There is a difference between should and did; I am glad that you appear to know the difference...(not.) Also I do not believe that Figure Skating is a sport about "going forward". Some other posters adhere to this train of thought, but Figure Skating as I understand it is multidirectional in excellence. Hence, I could care less about your craptacular one-track-minded opinion, but thanks for sharing.

Originally Posted by rtureck

Oh duhh!!!! right back at you, the judges gave MK higher presentatin at nats. That was the point I was making that I agree with the judges. I never said kwan's prsentation was better at Nagano. (this is the lp we are talking about of course, at Nagano, Kwan's marks on both were higher in the sp)

Hiding behind the ol' scores. *Yawn* Because in 6.0, judges marked consistently from competition to competition; judges marked consistently between themselves in national and international competitions; because a 6.0 presentation in one performance means anything lesser than that deserves less than a 6.0 even if the same skater's "reserved" skating is still incredible; because skating order didn't have an impact............................................ .....................................

Nahh, I will agree with MKFSfan and the other posters who said that they'd give the tech at Nagano to Lipinski and the presentation to Kwan - but that I agree with the outcome regardless, because in my view Lipinski's presentation was pretty darn good as well and the tie-breaker in my mind should defer to the tech - it's more objective.

But uHHhh oH wait the judges gave the tech and presentation to Tara and that's how it was and I agree and that's my argument. Plus she did a triple loop, holy crap the triple loop. and a bit of a fluTz but who cares they judges still counted it so it counts as a real lutz, the judges r right.

In the 1980's and 1990's, it was thought that the 3F and 3Lz were both significantly harder.
Were it not so, Midori Ito would have ruled the 1980's, but instead it was the era of Kat Witt, who mostly had only 3T and 3S and 2A. (Of course, figures had something to do with it...) Midori had both a double loop triple loop combination and a triple loop triple loop combination. Here's a video of her doing an assortment of both jumps.

Also I do not believe that Figure Skating is a sport about "going forward". Some other posters adhere to this train of thought, but Figure Skating as I understand it is multidirectional in excellence. Hence, I could care less about your craptacular one-track-minded opinion, but thanks for sharing.

Oh duhh!!!, even track and field is multidirectional in excellence. I did not said FS is a sports just about going forward. I think all sports should be about going forward. So do not craptacularly misquote me

Nahh, I will agree with MKFSfan and the other posters who said that they'd give the tech at Nagano to Lipinski and the presentation to Kwan - but that I agree with the outcome regardless, because in my view Lipinski's presentation was pretty darn good as well and the tie-breaker in my mind should defer to the tech - it's more objective.

I couldn't care less that you think tech should be the tie breaker, . The rules in 1998 clearly gave the tie break to presentation for the lp. That is if skater A scores 6.0 tech and 5.9 presentation, and skater B scores 5.9 for tech and 6.0 for presentation the tie breaker is the presenation mark.

Oh duhh, didn't I said Tara won by both tech and presentation?

But uHHhh oH wait the judges gave the tech and presentation to Tara and that's how it was and I agree and that's my argument.

Oh, I thought you siad you can make the case of Tara wining just on tech alone.

Plus she did a triple loop, holy crap the triple loop. and a bit of a fluTz but who cares they judges still counted it so it counts as a real lutz, the judges r right.

What do you mean by she did "a triple loop". She did triple loop/triple loop combo. I mean nowadays triple loop is a rare thing among OGM just look at our or your looples OGM . Are you confused, because you hvaen't been seening too many triple loops, and took a triple loop/triple loop combo for a single triple loop

Oh duhh!!!, even track and field is multidirectional in excellence. I did not said FS is a sports about going forward. I think all sports should be about going forward. So do not craptacularly misquote me

Oh duhh, didn't I said Tara won by both tech and presentation?

Oh, I thought you siad you can make the case of Tara wining just on tech alone.

What do you mean by she did "a triple loop". She did triple loop/triple loop combo. I mean nowadays triple loop is a rare thing among OGM just look at our or your looples OGM . Are you confused, because you hvaen't been seening too many triple loops, and took a triple loop/triple loop combo for a single triple loop

I guess Tara's triple loop/ triple loop combo is spectacularly overwhelming. But I am not overwhelmed to the point of minimizing her triple loop/ triple loop combo just "a triple loop". I still know what is the tie breaker for lp in 1998, it was the presentation mark not the tech mark.

Talk about Tara's double axel. I think her 2a techique is a bit unconventional, that does not mean her 2a was not good. She was a roller skater champ before she took on figure skating seriously , it seems like she was applying some of her roller skating technique to her axel

I guess Tara's triple loop/ triple loop combo is spectacularly overwhelming. But I am not overwhelmed to the point of minimizing her triple loop/ triple loop combo just "a triple loop". I still know what is the tie breaker for lp in 1998, it was the presentation mark not the tech mark.

First of all, I never said Tara's 3Lo-3Lo was "just a triple loop" - I was laughing at your comments on the 3Lo as if it's particularly special. That is why dorispulaski made the comment that "the 3Lo as desperately overwhelming is a new one." You are the only one suggesting it as such, and using as "supporting evidence" various Olympic gold medalists who did not do it recently--while ignoring the fact that many other medalists or off-podium finishers actually do successful 3Lo's, too. Your weak reasoning is further weakened by the fact that many OG medalists have lacked/missed various jumps for whatever reason. In 1992 Kristi didn't do a triple Salchow. In 1994 Oksana was missing a bunch of jumps I don't care to watch her performances to pick out. In 1998, Tara was missing a triple Lutz. In 2002, Sarah was missing a triple Lutz. In 2006, Shizuka did not do a triple toe loop as well as the triple loop. YuNa never planned the triple loop throughout the whole season--but if she did not win gold, then Mao would have won--with two brilliant triple axels but no triple Salchow or Lutz. Hence, I am desperately underwhelmed by this interpretation of the significance of the 3Lo.

I am well aware of Tara's 3Lo-3Lo, which I have commented on long ago in this forum, but I believe it was my original argument that Tara's technical performance was above and beyond what Michelle laid out (or could have laid out)--and that combination is one of the factors. So, it is not clear what bone you have to pick with me, and by your repeated post editing and increasingly sloppier spelling and writing, I would guess maybe I hit some kind of nerve with you? (Or perhaps you are just sloppy by nature.) 4/9 judges at Nagano gave Tara and Michelle a tie on presentation, 5/9 already gave Michelle a higher presentation score. Saying that Michelle's Nats performance would have pushed international judges at Nagano to give her yet higher presentation marks is a stretch and a speculation I do not engage in. There are Michelle fans and skating purists who even think that Michelle may even have been undercredited on her tech, because she put out all the standard 5 jumps in a technically clean manner (with the saved landing on the flip.) Regardless, the judges unanimously said Tara owned the technical that night. See? I can still make a case for Tara winning because of her tech, which continues to be impressive today--not just for the 3Lo-3Lo (omg omg omg 3Lo?? TWO OF THEM?? IN COMBINATION? so magical! 3Lo) but also because of the layout, the fact that she spreads her jumps out throughout the program, and doesn't even do her most difficult elements right at the beginning.

Originally Posted by Mathman

Indeed. It is only now, for the 2010-2011 season, that the value of a triple loop has raised to 5.1 and the value of a triple flip lowered to 5.3.

Maybe the ISU, too, is wondering where the loop jump went and is trying to encourage more skaters to try it.

The 3Lo didn't go anywhere. Mao Asada did it, Joannie Rochette did it, Laura Lepisto did it...Mirai Nagasu did it. All the top 5 finishers in Vancouver did it, except YuNa. I guess ISU didn't like her winning so dominantly without the 3Lo - but how cute that they raise it just enough that the 3F and the 3Lz are still worth more. I guess that's a sign - the 3Lo is desperately overwhelming, but the 3F and 3Lz are mission impossibles.

ETA: The judges weren't unanimous about Tara's tech advantage over Michelle. The US judge said Michelle was just as good at her tech, and better on presentation.